Um, yes, you did see it in the story, as your comment is a classic illustration of prosecutorial PRESSURE.

The byline/headline is accurate and correct. Where I think you're making an error is assuming the article implies IMPROPER pressure was brought to bear. There was definitely pressure brought on this witness, but it was not improper pressure, and happens all the time when witnesses at trial recant their testimony that prosecutors remind them of the penalties about perjury. So the article is correct, there was pressure; however, this was not improper pressure.

Just because this is a circus doesn't mean a guilty verdict can't be reached and upheld; but it does make it a lot harder, and seems like this is one where the true finder of fact might end up being the appeals court.

I wouldn't say he disgraced his race. I would say that he embarrassed the hell out of anyone in his district, not so much because of this blatant stunt (though it should) but because he sounded like he had a room temperature IQ. In Nome, Alasaka. In February. And the room is the screen porch. Makes me feel better about the speech patterns of both Presidents Bush.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It does not guarantee a freedom from consequences of said speech and expression, nor does it guarantee you the freedom to say anything any where at any time.

Just as you have the right to prevent a Tea Party rally from taking place in your living room, Congress has the right to set up rules of conduct for civil discourse and debate (at least that's the theory, and compared to the rowdiness that happens in some other democracies, we're actually not doing badly).

Rep. Rush broke the rules, got cut off, and got the publicity he was counting on.

There is a vital area for hearings on this matter, but bounties? Absurd!

There should be hearings about the worst abuse of an anti-trust exemption in sports history: Goodell's unethical attempt to corrupt the judicial process by contaminating the ongoing head injury litigation with the NFL's action against the Saints. The NFL had a vested interest in finding against the Saints, in interpreting actions and statements as harshly as possible and in punishing the Saints as harshly as possible.

This flagrant attempt to subvert our judicial system should result in hearings and a DoJ invstigation about whether the NFL should retain its anti-trust exemption.

This is the worst abuse of an anti-trust exemption in the history of sports. The utterly unethical Goodell has taken advantage of an enormous conflict of interest, using his anti-trust exemption to cynically drop the hammer on the Saints in an attempt to corrupt the judicial system.

Think about it: Sen. Durbin is all hot and bothered with the hope of grabbing some camera time over the bounty issue, and is utterly ignoring a blatant attempt to corrupt our judicial system.

This has never happened before: An exempt party blatantly using its anti-trust exemption to attempt to contaminate the potential jury pool in a lawsuit against it.

I applaud the editorial staff at the TP for its demand for a release of all the info. We need to know how badly Goodell and the NFL may have slanted issues and "facts" in its favor, we need to know how far the NFL may have gone in an attempt to subvert the judicial process.

Heh. I'm LOL about the fact that a few weeks back I paraphrased Pesci's rebuttal "Everything he said is B*** S***," and someone actually posted to say that "My Cousin Vinny" was a movie, and not real life.

Most attorneys I know like that movie because it's actually a pretty decent picture of a criminal trial. How many movies actually discuss the rules of discovery and make you laugh at the same time? As for Vinny's rebuttal to the prosecution? His quote can be considered to be the summary of every defense opening statement ever made.

As to why is Regan doing this? Simple, give the jury something they can recognize to get them to understand the argument he is making. This is a common tactic by both prosecution and defense in criminal cases, and plaintiff and defense lawyers in civil cases. I've seen references to movies, books, TV shows and real life events in arguments to juries.

Ask this question: What's in the area of Henry Clay? On the river end: Children's Hospital and other medical facilities. There are facilities on Calhoun, which is one-way toward the river, that can only be reached, if you're coming from River Road, by going down HC. So, people in a rush for appointments and emergencies could be a contributing factor.

The other end? Calhoun is the last street before the park, so if you're coming down Tchoupitoulas or Magazine and want to get to St. Charles Avenue before the park, HC is your last chance, making it a high option for college students and staff at Loyola and Tulane universities. June 2010 was during summer break; February 2012 is not. You could also have people in a hurry to get to parades using HC last month as well.

I'm shocked. Not about the ruling, but that this is such a well written and cogent article on the legal issues of the decision. My compliments, Mr. Schleifstein, on a nice piece of writing and reporting.

Whoa, stop the presses. Newsflash: All kinds of states do this, not just Louisiana, on all types of things. Trust me on this: my kid's grade did reports on all the states and this sort of trivia abounded.